My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FULL PACKET_2005-04-04
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2005
>
04/04/2005
>
FULL PACKET_2005-04-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:56:30 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 12:16:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
444
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ALUC Minutes <br />Page 6 <br />March 18,2004 <br /> <br />Commissioner Webb moved to reconsider the project, with Commissioner H. Beverburg seconding. <br /> <br />Commissioner Propst read from the AELUP text regarding the legal mission of the ALUC to provide for <br />orderly airport growth while protecting the public. He noted the ALUe's planning role and the AELUP <br />policy to differ from FAR Part 77 for the sake of the public welfare and air safety, while observing the <br />project site to be under the right downwind or right base leg turn for Runway 19R. He stated that this falls <br />into aircraft traffic pattern protection, and that his intention is to find the project inconsistent. <br /> <br />Commissioner O'Malley agreed and supported exercising the latitude to find the project inconsistent <br />regarding public safety. <br /> <br />After the show of hands vote on the motion to reconsider, which passed, Executive Officer Golding <br />requested a roll call vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Golding recorded that Commissioners Webb, H. Beverburg, Campbell and Propst voted to reconsider, <br />with Commissioners Bresnahan, O'Malley and Harris voting no. <br /> <br />Commissioner Propst moved to find the project Inconsistent, with Commissioner H. Beverburg seconding. <br /> <br />Chairman Bresnahan acknowledged the motion and second, and requested presentation of the staff report to <br />be followed by any additional testimony. <br /> <br />Staff Analyst Brady referred to summary bullets he had prepared, to be followed by specific sections of the <br />staff report should the Commission so desire. <br /> <br />Mr. Brady described the additional handouts consisting of JW A AELUP Sections 2.1.3 and 3.2.1 and <br />graphics depicting the aircraft flight tracks and project site. Noting that the City had requested this <br />reconsideration based on new information in its submittal and testimony today, he next summarized the <br />background history of the project area resulting from a search of the AL UC files for the 1986-1990 period <br />and review of key MacArthur place documents provided by the City. Mr. Brady noted that the ALUC had <br />found the City's Airport Environs Element to be Inconsistent in August 1987, lacking certain needed <br />changes, which were never subsequently made by the City. He related the City's approval of the <br />MacArthur Place Specific Plan and associated EIR in December 1987, which relied on the Element <br />regarding the area's height limits. He continued, stating the City approved the Development Agreement in <br />January 1988, it being intended to implement the overall project. <br /> <br />Mr. Brady pointed out that during the same time-frame the ALUC acted on City referrals for MacArthur <br />Place, finding the project zoning! specific plan to be Consistent, apparently based on mitigation measures <br />and a site plan from the draft EIR. He continued with the ALUC February 1988 Consistency finding, that <br />the subsequent General Plan Amendment was the same project as previously acted on. In June 1989, the <br />ALUC found the first high-rise building of 12 stories to be Consistent, although an apparent FAA technical <br />error went undetected then. <br /> <br />Mr. Brady referred to the staff report section that responds to comments by the project's attorney, wherein <br />staff had found no record of the ALUC reviewing the Development Agreement, nor specific height limits <br />in the specific plan for individual parcels, nor any evidence that the Development Agreement granted a <br />vested right to build a 20-25 story building at the Geneva Commons site. <br /> <br />75C-180 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.